Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-13-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991213.3.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner Lamy, you rightly referred to many points and I am grateful to my fellow Members for saying how indebted we are to you for the way in which you led the negotiations in Seattle. This was done with consummate elegance, and I must say that I was present at many press conferences and I also went to the events organised by the non-governmental organisations. You also explained the European Union's negotiating position and its strategy with the utmost clarity. I believe that you made it clear that the European Union is in a position not only to take on a leading role in this and the forthcoming world trade round – and that we do not come here as poker players to secure our own interests – but also that we are prepared to bring the other countries, in particular the developing and least developed countries, on board with us.
This message has been heard, and I am proud to have been part of the delegation in Seattle. But we should not labour under any illusions. Two things have become apparent: one is that this accumulation of interests is something that we will continue to see in international negotiations in the future, and I should like to endorse the position of many leading economists who are saying that this was just the beginning. We will see that this conflict of national and regional interests will be even more pronounced in the future than it has been in the past. Here, of course, it will be important for us not to line up against each other in blocs – the European Union against the United States, the European Union/the United States against the developing countries, or perhaps also some of the developing countries against others – as we have seen in Seattle and also in other contexts. In the future, it will be much more important for us to adopt a more sophisticated approach with greater emphasis on preparation, so as to make it clear which interests we actually stand for together in these world trade rounds and why we need them: namely to bring globalisation under control, taming the rank growth which would otherwise proliferate without a world trade round, in order to implement a sound strategy to overcome global problems.
The second phenomenon which we saw – and here too, I do not believe that we should have any illusions – was that the interest which civil society showed in the proceedings in Seattle was not only an interest in the world trade round, but also a demonstration against all those things which people do not like. This started with the healthcare system in the United States. I spoke to many people on the streets. The issues ranged from future Chinese participation in the world trade round to the policies pursued in Cuba, and there were many other issues besides. Increasingly, politicians are being asked to explain – and to do so in greater depth than they have in the past – what the World Trade Organisation actually does and why it exists. Of course, it also needs to be reformed and to be made more transparent, but it must also be explained better. Here I am particularly glad that parliamentarians have now been included; other speakers have referred to this. The role which will fall to us, as a parliamentary forum, in the world trade round will not be easy. However, I believe that this is the only way to introduce greater democracy into such a complex bureaucratic machine."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples